ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF INCOMPATIBILITIES IN THE ... 134/Pacan… · 11 (Arvanitoyannis, and...

S I L E S I A N U N I V E R S I T Y O F T E C H N O L O G Y P U B L I S H I N G H O U S E

SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF THE SILESIAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 2019

ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT SERIES NO. 134

http://dx.doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2019.134.14 https://www.polsl.pl/Wydzialy/ROZ/Strony/Zeszytynaukowe.aspx

ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF INCOMPATIBILITIES 1

IN THE SELECTED PRODUCTION PROCESSES 2

Andrzej PACANA1*, Dominika SIWIEC2 3

1 Rzeszow University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, Rzeszow, Poland; 4 [email protected], ORCID: 0000-0003-1121-6352 5

2 Rzeszow University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, Rzeszow, Poland; 6 [email protected], ORCID: 0000-0002-6663-6621 7

* Correspondence author 8

Abstract: Analysis of the incompatibilities occurring in an organization relies on identifying 9

the problem and then applying the appropriate corrective and improvement actions. It is 10

possible by using appropriate instruments of quality management and, basically, their sequence, 11

which is a modern way of solving the problem, and it enables the improvement of functioning 12

of an enterprise. Therefore, it is advisable to select an appropriate group of quality management 13

instruments and use them in the appropriate sequence, because then they are complete and lead 14

to full analysis and conclusions adequate to the problem. The aim of the article is to analyze the 15

correlation and influence of the selected factors on the incompatibilities in selected processes, 16

i.e. the production process of furniture fronts and furniture in general. Moreover, the idea is to 17

use the appropriate sequence of instruments of quality management to solve various types of 18

incompatibilities. The analysis was made at a company where a lot of different kinds of 19

incompatibilities in processes were identified within 9 months. It was important to solve the 20

problem for this enterprise because it was generating relatively large financial losses, and the 21

lack of identified causes of the problem precluded taking preventive actions and developing the 22

enterprise. After the initial analysis of the processes and problems, it was decided to use the 23

correlation analysis, the Pareto-Lorenz diagram, the 5W2H method, the Ishikawa diagram and 24

the 5Why method. The methodology and conclusions drawn from the analysis may be useful 25

in solving complex problems at other production and service enterprises. 26

Keywords: production process, quality management, incompatibilities, the Ishikawa diagram. 27

28

182 A. Pacana, D. Siwiec

1. Introduction 1

By using quality management tools, it is possible to analyze the problems that arise in every 2

company. It is important to analyze a problem correctly and then draw constructive conclusions, 3

thus making decisions on the implementation of the improvement measures which will be 4

effective if the analysis of the causes of the problem is carried out in an appropriate manner. 5

The term quality refers to a set of features of a given product or service, thanks to which it is 6

possible to ensure customer satisfaction. If enterprises want to meet customer requirements, 7

they have to produce products that are good in terms of quality and compatible with the 8

requirements of the customers. The strive to satisfy customer requirements and produce the best 9

quality products results from the company goal, which depends, among others, on enrichment 10

(i.e. increasing revenue) and lack of waste. The detection of the causes of incompatibilities and 11

their effective elimination is the basis for ensuring high quality of products and maintaining 12

production continuity. 13

The problem with incompatibilities was identified in an enterprise located in the 14

Subcrpathian Voivodeship, the activity of which included the production of furniture fronts and 15

furniture. Approximately 7,000 different types of incompatibilities occurred in the enterprise 16

within 9 months, and the lack of an identified main cause of the problem implied that it was 17

impossible to take preventive actions. The aim of the article is to analyze the correlation and 18

influence of the selected factors of incompatibilities of furniture fronts and furniture and to 19

propose the use of the appropriate sequence of quality management instruments to solve the 20

incompatibilities. Data regarding the number of incompatibilities occurring in the enterprise 21

from January to September 2018 were analyzed. Due to a large amount of the data, as well as 22

a large amount of the causes of incompatibilities, the applied sequence of instruments of quality 23

management was proposed. Additionally, the importance of the correlation analysis for this 24

problem was shown. 25

The STATISTICA program was used to analyze the correlation between the type of the 26

incompatibility and other factors describing their occurrence, i.e.: date, number of the plan, 27

product surface, color, product profile and type. In order to graphically present the number of 28

incompatibility types and the incompatibilities comprising 80% of effects and generated by 29

20% of the causes, the Pareto-Lorenz diagram was made. Then, according to the methodology 30

of the 5W2H method, an expanded graphical characteristic of the problem was made. In order 31

to identify the potential causes of the problem, the Ishikawa diagram was made. The diagram 32

was extended by additional factors which were correlated with the analyzed incompatibilities. 33

In the last stage of the analysis, the 5Why method was used to identify the root cause of the 34

incompatibility of furniture fronts and furniture. It was concluded that the reason was small 35

(or the lack of) participation of employees and the management in conferences or trainings 36

Analysis of the causes of incompatibilities… 183

regarding the optimization of the hall, machine maintenance (TPM), i.e. the topic of Lean 1

Manufacturing and quality management. 2

2. Materials and methods 3

Due to the lack of identified causes of incompatibility (Figure 1), an appropriate sequence 4

of quality management instruments was used in the analysis. In addition, the correlation 5

analysis was conducted using the STATISTICA program. 6

7

Figure 1. Examples of selected incompatibilities: a), b) mechanical damage, c) foil damage, d) stains. 8

In the first step of the analysis, the Pareto-Lorenz diagram was made in order to identify, 9

according to the 80:20 rule, which of the 80% of effects are caused by 20% of causes 10

(Arvanitoyannis, and Savelides, 2007; Arvanitoyannis, and Varzakas, 2007; Hartman, 2001). 11

Before the Pareto-Lorenz diagram was made it was necessary to prepare data regarding the 12

incompatibilities (Hoła et. al., 2017; Hola et. al., 2018). The data was arranged in the descending 13

order and the cumulative number of the types of encountered incompatibilities and their 14

cumulative percentage were calculated. 15

The STATISTICA program was used to analyze the correlation between the types of 16

incompatibilities and other factors describing their occurrence, i.e.: date, number of the plan, 17

product surface, color, product profile and product type. The data concerning the problem were 18

entered into the computer program and text labels were provided to the values which were not 19

numerical. The confidence allocation of 0.95 was selected, which implied that the correlation 20

between the factors occurred in the case of the significance level of 0.05. 21

In order to identify the potential causes of the problem of incompatibilities of furniture 22

fronts and furniture, the expanded Ishikawa diagram was made; it is also called the fish bone 23

diagram or the diagram of causes and effects of defects. The elements which were necessary to 24

prepare the Ishikawa diagram were the areas with which the causes of the problem were 25

matched. Elements such as: method, material, environment, man, management and machine – 26

5M+E (Bilsel, and Lin, 2012; Chokkalingam et. al., 2017; Lira et. al., 2017) were added to those 27


areas. Only a few categories, namely: man, machine, management and environment were 1

selected to analyze this problem because it was thought that only those categories were related 2

to the problem analyzed. However, as a follow-up, additional categories correlated with the 3

problem were identified, i.e.: date, color, product profile and product type (Pacana et. al., 2018a, 4

2019b). 5

The 5W2H method was used to define and diagnose as well as present the characteristics of 6

the problem in a simple and understandable way. The 5W2H method was based on asking seven 7

specific questions referring to the problem analyzed (the incompatibilities of the fronts and 8

furniture), i.e.: 9

Who? – Who noticed a problem? 10

What? – What was the problem? 11

Why? – Why was it a problem? 12

Where? – Where was the problem noticed? 13

When? – When was the problem noticed? 14

How? – How was the problem noticed? 15

How much? – How big was the problem? 16

The questions that were asked during the analysis using the 5W2H method were of variable 17

nature (Klock et. al, 2016; Nagyova et. al., 2015; Salvador, and Goldfarb, 2004; Shin, 2015). 18

The 5Why method enabled a gradual analysis of the problem of incompatibilities of the fronts 19

and furniture, thanks to which the source of the problem was identified (Benjamin et. al., 2015; 20

Braglia et. al., 2017; Lindhard, 2014). 21

3. Results 22

In the first stage of the analysis of the incompatibilities of furniture fronts and furniture, 23

the Pareto-Lorenzo diagram was drawn up (Figure 2). The data shown in the diagram refer to 24

all nonconformities identified from January to October 2018 in the production enterprise where 25

the analysis was carried out. 26


1

Figure 2. The Pareto-Lorenz diagram for all discrepancies identified from January to October 2018 in 2 the enterprise producing furniture fronts and furniture. 3

It was concluded that 20% of incompatibilities, i.e.: incomplete delivery, dots, wrinkles, foil 4

defects, holes and defects, were generating 80% of the reasons for the identified 5

incompatibilities. 6

An analysis of the correlation (Figure 3) between the type of incompatibility and the factors 7

characterizing each of the analyzed types of incompatibilities was conducted; these included: 8

date, plan number, product surface, front color, furniture profile and type of the product. 9

After the analysis, it was concluded that there was a correlation (so the level of significance 10

was lower than 0.05) between the type of the non-compliance and, in turn, the date of 11

non-compliance, front color, furniture profile, type of the product. 12

1659

1329

793696

604

467 460

263149 138

79 67 56 55 51 43 19 8 40%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Inco

mp

lete

del

iver

y

Do

ts

Wri

nk

les

Fil

m d

efec

t

Bad

clu

tter

Dis

c d

efec

t

Inv

isib

le f

oil

Mec

han

ical

dam

age

Fil

m b

reak

in t

he

pre

ss

Fil

m u

nh

ook

ing

Mil

lin

g d

efec

t

Wat

er s

tain

s

Fla

shes

Bad

dim

ensi

on

Bad

co

lor

Bad

glu

e ap

pli

cati

on

Bad

pro

file

Lac

kss

in

the

stock

Wro

ng

wri

tten

fo

rm

the

cum

ula

tive

val

ue

[%]

the

num

ber

of

the

dis

crep

anci

es [

pcs

]

the type of non-compliance


1

Figure 3. Correlations between the type of incompatibility and: a) date, b) color of the furniture front, 2 c) furniture profile, d) type of the product. 3

type of non-compliance




Correlation: r

Correlation: r

Correlation: r

Correlation: r

dat

e co

lou

r

pro

file

ty

pe

of

pro

du

ct


In order to characterize the problem of incompatibilities of furniture fronts and furniture, 1

the data concerning the problem were analyzed and the scheme was developed in accordance 2

with the 5W2H methodology (Figure 4). 3

It was concluded that the problems arose mainly at the production stage on various 4

production machines, as well as during the inspection of the products in the course of production 5

and in the warehouse. The incompatibilities caused many problems which prevented the 6

development and growth of the company's profits. 7

In order to identify the potential causes of the problem of incompatibilities of fronts and 8

furniture, an extensive Ishikawa diagram was prepared, in which additional factors were 9

included in addition to the basic factors which were correlated with the type of the 10

incompatibility (Figure 5). 11

It was concluded that the main reasons for incompatibilities of fronts and furniture were: 12

poor storage, pollution, worn out machinery, season, poorly taped products, varied shape and 13

manufacturing defect of the product. In order to identify the source cause of the problem, 14

selected main reasons that were found to be related to 20% of the incompatibilities (previously 15

identified in the Pareto-Lorenz analysis) were analyzed using the 5Why method (Figure 6). 16

1 Figure. 4. The graphical 5W2H method for the problem of incompatibilities of the fronts and furniture. 2

TH

E I

NC

OM

PA

TIB

ILIT

IES

Of

TH

E F

RO

NT

S

AN

D F

UR

NIT

UR

E

Why is this

a problem?

no sale opportunity

waste of resources

financial

property

human negative impact on the employees for

further work

no identified causes of the

problem

potential

main

source

Who noticed the

problem?

milling operator

machine operator for

sticking foils

worker who cleaning

fronts

quality controller

Wh

ere

an

d w

hen

wa

s th

e

pro

ble

m

no

tice

d?

during the inspection

Ho

w w

as

the

pro

ble

m

no

tice

d?

during production on

the milling machine

during cleaning

during production on

the machine, where the

foil was glued

finished

goods

warehouse

products in the

course of

production

vis

ual

con

tro

l

composition of

products on

the hall

188

A. P

acana, D

. Siw

iec

1 Figure 5. The Ishikawa diagram for the potential causes of the incompatibilities of the fronts and furniture. 2

Analy

sis of th

e causes o

f inco

mpatib

ilities…

1

89

1 2

Figure 6. Analysis of the problem using the 5Why method for selected potential reasons for the occurrence of the problem. 3

THE INCOMPATIBILITIES OF THE FRONTS AND FURNITURE

worn machine wrong storage

method pollution badly covered with

thermoplastic foil

Why?

no

TMP long time of

regular work old near the

road little

space

no kanban cards

no

5S floating

chips / dust

not using

conjugated

air

employee

error

Why?

no Lean Manufacturing

tools implemented

poorly established

production

process

lack of a sense of

responsibility

and consistency

non-compliance with the

optimization rules

lack of

periodic

training

lack of

supervi

sion

Why?

lack of management knowledge about the benefits from the implementation

of the quality management instruments and lean production

Why?

no space

in the hall

lack of knowledge

about the current

state of the machine

small (or the lack of) participation of employees and managements in conferences or trainings regarding the optimization of the hall, machine reviews

(TPM), i.e. the topic of Lean Manufacturing and the quality management

Why?

no additional

machine of the same

type

no lines or

warning signs

190

A

. Pacan

a, D. S

iwiec


After the analysis of the problem, the source cause of the incompatibilities of fronts and 1

furniture was found. The source cause was small (or the lack of) participation of employees and 2

management in conferences or trainings regarding the optimization of the hall, machine 3

maintenance (TPM), i.e. the topic of Lean Manufacturing and quality management. 4

References 5

1. Arvanitoyannis, I., Savelides, S. (2007). Application of failure mode and effect analysis and 6

cause and effect analysis and Pareto diagram in conjunction with HACCP to a chocolate-7

producing industry: A case study of tentative GMO detection at pilot plant scale. 8

International Journal Of Food Science And Technology, 42(11), 1265-1289. 9

2. Arvanitoyannis, I., and Varzakas, T. (2007). Application of failure mode and effect analysis 10

(FMEA), cause and effect analysis and Pareto diagram in conjunction with HACCP to 11

a potato chips manufacturing plant. International Journal Of Food Science And Technology, 12

42(12), 1424-1442. 13

3. Benjamin, S., Marathamuthu, M., and Murugaiah, U. (2015). The use of 5-WHYs technique 14

to eliminate OEE's speed loss in a manufacturing firm. Journal Of Quality In Maintenance 15

Engineering, 21(4), 419. 16

4. Bilsel, R.U., and Lin, D.K.J. (2012). Ishikawa Cause and Effect Diagrams Using Capture 17

Recapture Techniques. Quality Technology And Quantitative Management, 9(2), 137-152. 18

5. Braglia, M., Frosolini, M., Gallo, M. (2017). SMED enhanced with 5-Whys Analysis to 19

improve set-upreduction programs: the SWAN approach. International Journal Of 20

Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 90(5-8), 1845-1855. 21

6. Chokkalingam, B., Raja, V., Anburaj, J. et al. (2017). Investigation of Shrinkage Defect in 22

Castings by Quantitative Ishikawa Diagram. Archives Of Foundry Engineering, 17(1), 23

174-178. 24

7. Hartman, M.G. (2001). Separate the vital few from the trivial many – A Pareto diagram can 25

help you decide which improvement efforts to make first. Quality Progress, 34(9), 26

120-120. 27

8. Hoła, A., Hoła, B., and Szóstak, M. (2017). Analysis of the causes and consequences of falls 28

from scaffolding using the Polish construction industry as an example. IOP Conf. Ser. 29

Mater. Sci. Eng. 30

9. Hola, A., Sawicki, M., and Szostak, M. (2018). Methodology of Classifying the Causes of 31

Occupational Accidents Involving Construction Scaffolding Using Pareto-Lorenz Analysis. 32

Applied Sciences-Basel, 8(1). 33


10. Klock, A.C.T., an Gasparini, I., and Pimenta, M.S. (4-7 October 2016). 5W2H framework: 1

A guide to design, develop and evaluate the user-centered gamification. 15th Brazilian 2

Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 3

11. Lindhard, S. (Feb. 2014). Applying the 5 WHYs to Identify Root Causes to Non-completions 4

in On-Site Construction. 7th World Conference on Mass Customization, Personalization, 5

and Co-Creation (MCPC). 6

12. Lira, L.H., Hirai, F.E., Oliveira, M. et al. (2017). Use of the Ishikawa diagram in a case-7

control analysis to assess the causes of a diffuse lamellar keratitis outbreak. Arquivos 8

Brasileiros De Oftalmologia, 80(5), 281-284. 9

13. Nagyova, A., Palko, M., and Pacaiova, H. (June 2015). Analysis and identification of 10

nonconforming products by 5W2H method. 9th International Quality Conference. 11

14. Pacana, A., Czerwinska, K., and Bednarova, L. (2018). Discrepancies analysis of casts of 12

diesel engine piston. Metalurgija, 57(4), 324-326. 13

15. Pacana, A., Siwiec, D., Bednarova, L., and Hajduová, Z. (2019). The selected methods of 14

quality management used for the evaluation of label printing. Przemysl Chemiczny, 1, 15

DOI:10.15199/62.2019.1.17. 16

16. Salvador, C.G., and Goldfarb, N. (2004). Ishikawa cause and effect diagrams: A useful tool 17

in designing economic analyses. Value In Health, 7(3), 301-302. 18

17. Shin, D.G., Lee, S.I., and Son, K.S. (2015). Countermeasure for construction machinery 19

produced using 5why technique. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 20

7(4), 1478-1484. 21

http://www.sigma-not.pl/autor-118333-3-zuzana-hajduov%C3%A1.html

ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF INCOMPATIBILITIES IN THE ... 134/Pacan… · 11 (Arvanitoyannis, and...

Documents

Transcript of ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF INCOMPATIBILITIES IN THE ... 134/Pacan… · 11 (Arvanitoyannis, and...